Learn From History

[BallinPB]

1 hour ago, C Mart said:

Most likely Hackenberg will be further along, and at worst, starter ready for '18 than any '18 drafted QB. 

The Jets will also know what they have in Hack as a person, student, teammate, his work ethic, if he's coachable etc...

im not sure your statement is accurate.  Most college QBs aren't NFL ready because most are playing in spread Os which doesn't translate to the NFL  

Let's see where things are after this college and NFL season. Who knows how these college QBs will turnout this yr.  Maybe they take it to the next level, plateau or regress. And the same can be said for Hack in regards to a NFL QB. 

Everybody wants answers now and that's just not how it works. Just enjoy the season and watching all the young players play/develop. 

What I'm saying is there are better tools, technology etc for a QB coming out of college to be more prepared than ever before.  

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, C Mart said:

im not sure your statement is accurate.  Most college QBs aren't NFL ready because most are playing in spread Os which doesn't translate to the NFL  

This is the one that always gets me in the Hackenberg discussion.  One of his main advantages is that he was in a pro-style offense.  That should have made him more ready, but we are two years in and still preaching patience.  Meanwhile, Petty is OUT because WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE, despite having switched offensive systems on a guy who came from the Bear Raid. 

[RichardTodd27]

2 hours ago, rangerous said:

costello is a moron.  what he left out of the piece is that what the jets need most is front office stability.  they can chose qb's til the cows come home but if the gm/coaches are a revolving door then there's no point.  as for hack, he needs to get the short game so he can make those throws in his sleep.  he is supposed to have a good long ball.  that will come with time and opportunity.  but i do think they need to throw him in from week one.  there's no sense in starting mccown only to pull him by week 6.  of course that depends on how well he does over the next few weeks.

I agree with this post except for "throw him in from week one". Too much pressure for the kid. Let McCown fail and then put Hack in there. Mentally it's much easier to go in there with the chance to be a hero.

Also, it would really help with Hack's development if we can get a running game going. So far it seems like we have nothing.

[MaxAF]

The coaches are bringing Hack along just fine. Wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't see playing time until mid season. Some of the truly great QB'S we're brought into their systems gradually. Rodgers, Steve Young, Brady to name a few sat for years before they played. Garrapalo is another QB who will be seasoned well before he either gets traded or takes the reins. That's smart coaching. There are exceptions to this but nothing wrong with gradual development. Read Costello's article. In my opinion idiotic. This is a rebuild, growing year for the Jets. With any luck, some additions to the front line and good DP's the Jets will have a contending team in a couple years. 

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Here's the thing with this logic: these QBs are all different people. There is no magic formula or it would have been figured out by now, given a far larger aggregate sampling than merely Pennington-Sanchez-Smith. Even 3 out of 3 working out, being brought along at the same pace, or 3 out of 3 failing under the same circumstances, proves nothing. It may mean that this or that individual QB needed more time to develop; it may mean that all or none of them were destined successes or failures regardless of the speed of introduction to the pro game. 

For some QBs, you throw them to the wolves right away - or just about right away - and they're fine or better than fine immediately (e.g. current/recent starters like Wilson, Dak, RGIII, Roethlisberger, Mariota, etc.); for others, they're fine after a brief, initial rough period (e.g. both Mannings, Flacco, etc.); still others, who are throw in very early as rookies, require multiple seasons before they proved even moderately acceptable as starters (e.g. Brees, Alex Smith, etc.).

Imagine the waste of keeping Russell Wilson on the bench for a full 1-2 seasons. The goal is not to develop a QB by any means necessary just for the sake of doing so; the goal is to acquire or develop a QB for the betterment of the team, to win a SB. Seattle could have brought Wilson along very slowly like Aaron Rodgers, and it would have cost them a SB win in the process. Likewise, teams have brought well-regarded and/or high-upside QB prospects along slowly and it ultimately still made no difference (e.g. Brady Quinn, Brock Osweiler, Ryan Mallett, Brian Brohm, Kellen Clemens, maybe Paxton Lynch, etc.).

Whatever the paths or outcomes of Pennington or Sanchez or Smith, there is no one simple/obvious recipe to be followed for all prospects.

 

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

A few problems with this "history" lesson:  

1. I am not in favor of waiting until a player's rookie contract expires to determine if he is serviceable at his position.

2.  If we go by history, history has all kinds of rules that plot against Hackenberg.  He isn't exactly ticking off all the Parcells mandates - think he only got one (3-year starter).  Completion percentage?  Thick skin?  This is a kid we didn't play because he was "shell-shocked" in college.  Small hands?  It bothered NoBowles, and I don't know how statistically relevant it is, but the success stories were Geno, Tannehill and Kaepernick.  Ouch.

ESPN researched that since 2008 there had been 39 quarterbacks who had been measured with a hand size of 9 1/4 or smaller; less than one-fifth of them had even gone on to start half a season in the NFL and none had made a Pro Bowl.

The fact that he looked okay Saturday is a sign of how low we have placed the bar.  He needs to look better, and he might.  We can't keep the training wheels on him forever.  This doesn't mean that I advocate having him air it out from here on out, but if by the end of this season people are still looking at it as Hackenberg will finally get his chance soon?  That is a total failure. His chance is now.  Seize it or get the **** out. 

I just cannot even with these SOJFs

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, peebag said:

I don't care if Hack looks like the next coming of Dan Marino - the Jets need to get one of the top QBs in this coming draft.

If he looks like and plays like the next coming of Dan Marino we won't go anywhere near the top guys.  For one we won't be in a position to grab one.  

Never mind it would be pointless, 

[hawk]

4 hours ago, BallinPB said:

I think the air it our mentality in this case comes from the fact that there are 3 potential franchise QBs in next years draft ripe for the taking.  I personally think that developing a QB nowadays over a period of 3 years is outdated.  These QBs coming out of college are more prepared than ever for the NFL.  

These QB's are far less prepared then before.  Most dont even call a play in college anymore.  They have one responsibility and one read.  Obviously, there are exceptions.  JMO

[Il Mostro]

2 hours ago, slats said:

My much larger concern would be passing on a QB they turned out to really need because -without conclusive evidence- they decided that Hack appeared to be good enough. As you said, if you have one QB too many, you should be able to get trade value back. 

McCown is not the future and this should be a make or break season for Petty.  I really don't see either being on the team next year.  My hope is they draft a QB relatively early no matter what Hackenberg looks like.  We really need a 1 and 1A going forward, without a huge drop off.  The thing is, we have been so poor at the QB position, there has been no room for real drop off or difference between the starter and back ups.  If Hack turns out to be the guy, we need to go into future drafts looking for the next guy.  Unless he really excels, that "relatively early QB pick" needs to change to "as early in the 1st as possible".  In any event, the position must be addressed as a priority on an ongoing basis.

[C Mart]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

This is the one that always gets me in the Hackenberg discussion.  One of his main advantages is that he was in a pro-style offense.  That should have made him more ready, but we are two years in and still preaching patience.  Meanwhile, Petty is OUT because WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE, despite having switched offensive systems on a guy who came from the Bear Raid. 

And Hack also got the sh*t kicked out of him his soph/jr seasons in a non-pro style O which caused a lot into him establishing bad habits, footwork etc...They'll never say it but IMO that was one, if not the biggest reason for his red shirt season. 

[Dupe]

I concur with KRL and think most of you are all wrong and missing an important point.  Perhaps you are listening to what posters say too much and not what you hear from coaches.

What is the offensive's top priority?  It not scoring points; its Not turning the ball over.   That couples with the WCO and what you should expect to see.  Hackenberg is going to be looking for the slanting recever who is covered one on one, or the mid range guy where there isnt saftey help.  Thats where emphisis and development is going to be.

[Pcola]

4 hours ago, rangerous said:

costello is a moron.  what he left out of the piece is that what the jets need most is front office stability.  they can chose qb's til the cows come home but if the gm/coaches are a revolving door then there's no point.  as for hack, he needs to get the short game so he can make those throws in his sleep.  he is supposed to have a good long ball.  that will come with time and opportunity.  but i do think they need to throw him in from week one.  there's no sense in starting mccown only to pull him by week 6.  of course that depends on how well he does over the next few weeks.

I agree that successful organizations need stability in the FO and that includes the head coach.  But all of the organizations in the NFL that have stable front offices, have legitimate QBs.  The teams that keep firing their HCs and GMs never seem to have QBs.  

Taking Hackenberg last year did nothing to solve the Jets QB issues.  Teams that can afford to draft a QB that needs multiple years of development should already have a starting QB in place.  

You can stash Pennington on the bench when you have Testaverde.  You can't stash Hackenberg on the bench when you keep signing over the hill scrubs that end up being the worst starters in the league, year after year.  

And what exactly is Hackenberg's ceiling right now?  Are we literally trying to take multiple years of coaching to produce a below average game manager?

[Pcola]

37 minutes ago, hawk said:

These QB's are far less prepared then before.  Most dont even call a play in college anymore.  They have one responsibility and one read.  Obviously, there are exceptions.  JMO

Just looking back at the past few drafts, Winston, Mariota,  Wentz, and Prescott didn't need multiple years of Pro coaching or a red shirt year.  Darnold is following in that mold.  

To be completely honest, with our QB situation what it was, Macc and the organization erred in taking Hackenberg.  Fitz was a FA and they were not comfortable with Geno.  The last thing this team needed was a QB that was going to require 2-3 years of developing.  Unless they actually thought he would come in and be able to play right away.  The fact that he was so far off that they HAD to resign Fitz.  Then their red shirt year and baby steps talk are just excuses.

[#27TheDominator]

49 minutes ago, C Mart said:

And Hack also got the sh*t kicked out of him his soph/jr seasons in a non-pro style O which caused a lot into him establishing bad habits, footwork etc...They'll never say it but IMO that was one, if not the biggest reason for his red shirt season. 

Who'll never say it?  You mean the coaches? I rarely hear anything else around here.  

[Gastineau Lives]

6 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

The "air it out" faction is primarily the same personality archetype that cries "sign this beast" or "fire this guy".

I ignore them, unless I'm trolling them.

Fire this ape.

[Pcola]

4 hours ago, C Mart said:

Huh? I'll take Marino as my QB. Who wouldn't?  

Matt Barkley, Leinart, Lockert were all considered top QBs the yr before they came out. 

So were Winston, Luck, Mariota.  No one is going to mistake Darnold for Barkley, Leinart, and Locker.  He was all the buzz at the combine this year and he wasn't even in the draft.  

[JohnnyLV]

2 hours ago, MaxAF said:

The coaches are bringing Hack along just fine. Wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't see playing time until mid season. Some of the truly great QB'S we're brought into their systems gradually. Rodgers, Steve Young, Brady to name a few sat for years before they played. Garrapalo is another QB who will be seasoned well before he either gets traded or takes the reins. That's smart coaching. There are exceptions to this but nothing wrong with gradual development. Read Costello's article. In my opinion idiotic. This is a rebuild, growing year for the Jets. With any luck, some additions to the front line and good DP's the Jets will have a contending team in a couple years. 

Sorry but that idea is just dumb. Starting McClown accomplishes nothing positive, and many things negative.

[Gas2No99]

HISTORY has TAUGHT US NOTHING as HUMAN NATURE tends to ALWAYS REPEAT ITSELF IRREGARDLESS OF LESSONS FROM THE PAST.

[redlichtie]

7 hours ago, BallinPB said:

I think the air it our mentality in this case comes from the fact that there are 3 potential franchise QBs in next years draft ripe for the taking.  I personally think that developing a QB nowadays over a period of 3 years is outdated.  These QBs coming out of college are more prepared than ever for the NFL.  

Disagree, it's the opposite....hardly any college programmes are running pro-style offences, it's all air-raid style or spread....if anything the process of evaluating whether a QB has the tools to succeed in the NFL has become tougher, the talent may still be there but the offences they are running bear little or no resemblance toe hat they will be required to run as a pro and hence the need to develop over time is as relevant as ever in my opinion

[BallinPB]

5 minutes ago, redlichtie said:

Disagree, it's the opposite....hardly any college programmes are running pro-style offences, it's all air-raid style or spread....if anything the process of evaluating whether a QB has the tools to succeed in the NFL has become tougher, the talent may still be there but the offences they are running bear little or no resemblance toe hat they will be required to run as a pro and hence the need to develop over time is as relevant as ever in my opinion

I disagree.  Whether a college runs a pro style offense or not, once a player declares for the draft, the tools that are there for them today far outweigh the ones they had back in the day.  From the technology of film study to coaching, these college players have way more tools at their disposal today to be better prepared to step on that field day one.  I do agree that experience in the system is obviously valuable but you can't tell me that playing pro-style offense with college players where maybe a handful of players have NFL talent is more valuable than a handful of games of actual pro experience in the NFL.  

[redlichtie]

21 minutes ago, BallinPB said:

I disagree.  Whether a college runs a pro style offense or not, once a player declares for the draft, the tools that are there for them today far outweigh the ones they had back in the day.  From the technology of film study to coaching, these college players have way more tools at their disposal today to be better prepared to step on that field day one.  I do agree that experience in the system is obviously valuable but you can't tell me that playing pro-style offense with college players where maybe a handful of players have NFL talent is more valuable than a handful of games of actual pro experience in the NFL.  

As others have noted in this thread, if you've never had to call a play in your life or even operate a huddle never mind go through reads and progressions then you are not going to be ready for the NFL anytime soon

[Jetscode1]

41 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Sorry but that idea is just dumb. Starting McClown accomplishes nothing positive, and many things negative.

Completely disagree with your point.  McCown buys time for the younger QBs to learn while not getting overwhelmed and not re-enforcing bad habits.  Hack or Petty should start when they earn the job.

[rangerous]

2 hours ago, Pcola said:

I agree that successful organizations need stability in the FO and that includes the head coach.  But all of the organizations in the NFL that have stable front offices, have legitimate QBs.  The teams that keep firing their HCs and GMs never seem to have QBs.  

Taking Hackenberg last year did nothing to solve the Jets QB issues.  Teams that can afford to draft a QB that needs multiple years of development should already have a starting QB in place.  

You can stash Pennington on the bench when you have Testaverde.  You can't stash Hackenberg on the bench when you keep signing over the hill scrubs that end up being the worst starters in the league, year after year.  

And what exactly is Hackenberg's ceiling right now?  Are we literally trying to take multiple years of coaching to produce a below average game manager?

well yes. but the whole thing i don't think mac or bowles thought the whole fitz thing was going to blow up so badly on them last season.  the 10-6 2015 record and the general good feelings about fitz (and the bad feelings about geno) made the hack pick justifiable.  but as we are seeing gailey and patullo did very little to get hack ready for this season regardless if the jets had planned to have him start this season.  bad move and really justifies bowles launching of both gailey and patullo.

i have no issue with him taking last season off.  i have an issue with gailey/patullo not getting him ready for this season. 

[JohnnyLV]

46 minutes ago, Jetscode1 said:

Completely disagree with your point.  McCown buys time for the younger QBs to learn while not getting overwhelmed and not re-enforcing bad habits.  Hack or Petty should start when they earn the job.

Hack learns nothing sitting on the sidelines an additional few weeks. He learns from playing.

[Jetscode1]

24 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Hack learns nothing sitting on the sidelines an additional few weeks. He learns from playing.

...and if the Jets are as bad as many say...McCown takes the lumps...that's the reason he's on the roster...throwing Hack or Petty to the wolves when/if they are unprepared does not a QB make.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Gas2No99 said:

HISTORY has TAUGHT US NOTHING as HUMAN NATURE tends to ALWAYS REPEAT ITSELF IRREGARDLESS OF LESSONS FROM THE PAST.

IRREGARDLESS!!  

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, slats said:

My much larger concern would be passing on a QB they turned out to really need because -without conclusive evidence- they decided that Hack appeared to be good enough. As you said, if you have one QB too many, you should be able to get trade value back. 

I was saying that it doesn't matter if fans cry about real opportunities or conclusive evidence, not the team. 

IMO unless he's a borderline pro bowler this year there's no way I'd pass up on the opportunity to draft another. Looking meh or even just ok plus a mere improvement over the last 3-4 weeks isn't nearly enough.

Having 2 viable options at QB is no problem at all, and hopefully the team feels the same way. 

[The Walrus]

Some Qbs start as a rookie and become pro bowl.

Some Qbs start as a rookie and never become franchise caliber.

 

Some Qbs sit and become pro bowl.

Some Qbs sit and never become franchise caliber.

 

Some Qbs (Wilson) are mature enough in character to start as a rookie.

Some Qbs (Geno) aren't mature enough in character to start as a rookie.

 

There is just no one right way all the time. You have to take a look at who you have, their skills and character, what they are showing you in practice, who else is on your roster, where is your team sitting and decide how you are going to proceed.

[HawkeyeJet]

2 hours ago, Pcola said:

So were Winston, Luck, Mariota.  No one is going to mistake Darnold for Barkley, Leinart, and Locker.  He was all the buzz at the combine this year and he wasn't even in the draft.  

You really, really, really pump up Darnold.  He's hardly a consensus "lock".  He's not even the consensus best QB in the draft next year.

[NYs Stepchild]

2 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

HISTORY has TAUGHT US NOTHING as HUMAN NATURE tends to ALWAYS REPEAT ITSELF IRREGARDLESS OF LESSONS FROM THE PAST.

How do you know that history teaches us nothing? 

[Lupz27]

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I was saying that it doesn't matter if fans cry about real opportunities or conclusive evidence, not the team. 

IMO unless he's a borderline pro bowler this year there's no way I'd pass up on the opportunity to draft another. Looking meh or even just ok plus a mere improvement over the last 3-4 weeks isn't nearly enough.

Having 2 viable options at QB is no problem at all, and hopefully the team feels the same way. 

Do you waste a pick on a non can't miss prospect thou say if the Jets win 4 games, get 4th pick, and the top 2-3 QB's are gone, and the others are borderline 1st rounders?  Because IMO the most likely scenario is that only 2 of these QB's next year will be considered top 1st round talent, and if your not picking 1, or 2 your not getting 1.  Sorry I am not reaching for Josh Rosen at 4 IF all the reports of him being a douche locker room cancer scumbag with great physical abilities, or Baker Mayfield who will need a redshirt year, or Lamar Jackson who might be the most dynamic athletic QB since Vick, but won't be able to complete more then 50% of his passes, or play from within the pocket for 3+ years, hell I still don't get the whole hub bub about Josh Allen who IMO is a 3" larger version of Mahomes, but without the IT factor that Mahomes will bring, Allen is said to have special arm talent like Mahomes, but because he plays in a more convertible pro system where he only completed like 55% of his passes last year guys are drooling over him.  The only guy who should get drooled over is Darnold, while he isn't the most physically gifted of the QB's coming out next season he is the one that has every box checked in what you need to succeed at the next level, while all the others have at least 1 question mark instead of a check in those boxes, I also think the 2017 QB draft class was severely underrated because of this media frenzy over the 2018 draft class, and the Jets are gonna look foolish while Mahomes, Watson, and even maybe another QB choosen later becomes a franchise QB because we need a great team leader at Safety, don't get me wrong I love Adams, but if I am gonna choose between Earl Thomas, and Russell Wilson I am taking Wilson every time.

[Pcola]

11 minutes ago, HawkeyeJet said:

You really, really, really pump up Darnold.  He's hardly a consensus "lock".  He's not even the consensus best QB in the draft next year.

Right now, he is heads and shoulders above everyone else in the draft class.  Rosen and Josh Allen are projected as first rounders not because of anything they have done but on athletisicism and potential.  Compare the three of them, it's not even close.  Allen, in fact has accuracy issues similar to what we are trying to fix right now with Hackenberg.  Mason is statistically the second best pro prospect right now.  The difference between Darnold and everyone else is similar to the team with the #1 pick getting Winston or Mariota and the team getting the second pick getting a QB with a ceiling around current day Ryan Tannehill.

Scouts have stated that Darnold is a better pro prospect at this stage of his career than Luck, Winston, and Stafford.  

 Darnold took over an 0-3 team and ran the table.  Not sure if you watched the USC/PSU bowl game, but his play in that game is how legends are made.  Sure anything can happen, like Darnold could get injured, could get lazy, etc.  But as of now, there will be one team n xt year that is going to solve their QB problem for the foreseeable future.  As usual, it probably won't be the Jets because having 5-6 win seasons is really important to our owner and fan base.

[Gas2No99]

1 hour ago, NYs Stepchild said:

How do you know that history teaches us nothing? 

Because the same atrocities and congruent events still repeat themselves throughout the world as the centuries pass; technology nowadays merely presents it in an accessible, viewable, and compact manner making it easier to digest and discard.

[NYs Stepchild]

8 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

Because the same atrocities and congruent events still repeat themselves throughout the world as the centuries pass; technology nowadays merely presents it in an accessible, viewable, and compact manner making it easier to digest and discard.

So it teaches us that people never change...Well that's something. 

[BCJet]

If 2 QBs go before us, that also means that 2 positional players will be available.  This draft has edge rushers, 2 LT prospects and an excellent RB.

On top of that, guys like Luke Falk will be available with our second pick, or if we trade back into the first round, so we have the option of taking a pass rusher (Arden Key/Harold Landry), or Barkley and then a QB.

Then we improve the team, while having Falk and Hack continue to develop - increasing our chances of finding a QB while also building a strong team around that QB.

[MaxAF]

16 hours ago, johnnysd said:

Sorry but that idea is just dumb. Starting McClown accomplishes nothing positive, and many things negative.

It may be dumb but I would bet that's what will happen.